Delhi High Court
Kishan Lal Bhalla vs Usha Bhalla & Anr. on 18 October, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~1 & 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. Nos. 2240/2011 & 2241/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 18th October, 2011
CRL.M.C. No. 2240/2011
KISHAN LAL BHALLA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. R.C. Bhalla, Adv.
versus
USHA BHALLA & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Subhash Chand, Adv.
for respondent no. 1 & 2.
Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC for UOI
with Ms. Gayatri Verma, Adv. and Mrs.
Deepa Bajwa, Addl. Director General,
Defence Estates, Ministry of Defence
and Ms. Sujatha Gupta, Defence
Estates, Officer, Ministry of Defence.
AND
CRL. M.C. No. 2241/2011
KISHAN LAL BHALLA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. : Mr. R.C. Bhalla, Adv.
versus
USHA BHALLA & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Through : Mr.Subhash
Chand, Adv. for respondent no. 1 & 2.
Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC for UOI with Ms.
Gayatri Verma, Adv. and Mrs. Deepa
Bajwa, Addl. Director General, Defence
Crl.M.C. 2240-41/2011 Page 1 of 7
Estates, Ministry of Defence and Ms.
Sujatha Gupta, Defence Estates, Officer,
Ministry of Defence.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
+ CRL. M.C. Nos. 2440/2011 & 2241/2011
1. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a
common order. Vide the instant application, the Petitioner
has prayed to set aside the impugned Judgment dated
24.05.2011 in Crl. Rev. No. 56/2010 passed by Ld. ASJ-1
(East), Kakardooma Courts, Delhi.
2. Vide Judgment dated 24.11.2009, Ld. MM has directed
the Petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-
in favour of Petitioner no. 1 and Rs.1,200/- per month to the
petitioner no. 2 till she join majority.
3. The aforesaid order was challenged by both the parties.
4. Ld. ASJ vide a common Judgment dated 24.05.2011
while modifying the Order passed by Ld. MM has enhanced
Rs.1,200/- per month to Rs.2,000/- till respondent no. 2 is
married.
5. Vide the instant Petition, the Petitioner submits that at
the time of passing of the impugned Judgment, he was
getting a salary of Rs.36,000/- per month. Therefore, he was
able to pay the amount as directed by the Ld. MM.
6. Thereafter, the Petitioner has been superannuated on
30.8.2011 and therefore he is unable to pay the amount of
Rs.12,000/- per month being Pensioner.
7. It is recorded in Order dated 30.09.2011 that till date,
neither he received any retirement benefit not the
Department has started disbursing the pension.
8. Vide order dated 30.09.2011, Defence Estate Officer
(Delhi Circle), Delhi Cantt. was directed to file the details
about the amount to which the Petitioner was entitled to get
his retirement benefit and pension. Somehow, the report
was not filed by the Said Officer.
9. Ld. Standing Counsel Mr. Sachin Dutta is present, who
has filed an affidavit on 17.10.2011, whereby, he has stated
that the Petitioner has already been submitted in the
document along with the information delivered in the Office
of Registrar General, amount of Rs.12,63,550/- has already
been paid to the Petitioner in September, 2011 as final
payment in lieu of his GPF entitlement. Besides this, the
Petitioner is estimated to receive the following emoluments:
1. Commutation of Pension : Rs.3,96,458/-
2. Retirement Gratuity : Rs.5,02,293/-
3. Earned Leave Encashment : Rs.3,12,580/-
4. CG Employee Insurance Scheme : Rs.35,000/-
In addition to that, the Petitioner is also entitled to
monthly family Pension of Rs.10,080/-, which is subject to
order being passed by the PCDA (P) Allahabad.
10. Further submits that Rs.3,12,580/-, earned leave
encashment and Rs.35,000/- Central Government Employees
Insurance Scheme is being paid within 15 days from today.
11. The respondent no. 1 admittedly is not a earning
member. Respondent no. 2 is pursuing MA in English. The
Petitioner no. 1 is having 2 more sons aged about 29 & 32
years. The elder son is married and living separately. He has
no help to the respondents. The another son, is unemployed
and staying with her.
12. Therefore, respondent No. 1 has to settle both the
children and marry them. On the other hand, the Petitioner is
staying on rent and paying Rs.2,500/- per month including
the electricity charges. He has no other liabilities.
13. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is
alone. He met with an accident, due to which he has to take
periodical treatment. Therefore, he requires money for his
treatment.
14. Admittedly, the Petitioner is retired from the Central
Government, therefore, the treatment shall be taken care of
by the CGHS. No other liability he is having, except to
maintain himself.
15. Respondents on the other side has to maintain her
daughter further to her marriage and one son who is
unmarried and unemployed is to settle in life.
16. In these circumstances, as agreed by both the parties,
whatever amount the Petitioner is received from the
Department as retirement benefits or a pension, the same
shall be divided into three parts. The Petitioner will keep one
part and 2 parts shall be disbursed to respondent no. 1 & 2.
17. As agreed further, the respondents shall be entitled for
2/3rd of the pension of the petitioner instead of the amount
as directed by the Ld. MM and Ld ASJ as well.
18. In these circumstances, I modify the impugned order
passed by Ld. ASJ and direct the Defence Estate Officer
(Delhi Circle), Delhi Cantt to calculate the amount and
accordingly disbursed the same in favour of the respondent
no. 1. Same shall be kept in the joint account of respondent
no.1 & 2.
19. PCDA (P) is further directed to disburse the amount
pending in three equal proportion as directed above.
20. PCDA (P) is further directed to disburse 50% of the
pension, to the Petitioner 50% in the name of the respondent
No.1. The respondents shall open account if, they have no
account. Thereafter, furnish the details to the Defence
Estate Officer (Delhi Circle), Delhi Cantt. The said office is
further directed to intimate the said account to all
concerned.
21. The Petitioner has already received Rs.12,63,500/-.
Accordingly, the Petitioner shall issue a cheque in the name
of the respondent no. 1 on 2/3rd basis of the said amount.
22. Since the Petition has been disposed of, the notice of
the Contempt Proceedings vide order dated 17.10.2011 also
recalled.
23. In view of the main Petition having been disposed of,
Crl. M.A. No. 8132/2011 & Crl. M.A. 11789/2011 in Crl. M.C.
2240/2011 and Crl. M.A 8134/2011 and Crl. M.A. 11798/2011
in Crl. MC 2241/2011 and become infructuous and are
dismissed as infructuous.
24. No orders as to cost.
SURESH KAIT,J
OCTOBER 18, 2011
JG
